6.2 Adverse impacts of fishing activities under South Atlantic Council Fishery Management Plans (excerpted from Barnette 2001) All fishing has an effect on the marine environment, and therefore the associated habitat. Fishing has been identified as the most widespread human exploitative activity in the marine environment (Jennings and Kaiser 1998), as well as the major anthropogenic threat to demersal fisheries habitat on the continental shelf (Cappo et al. 1998). Fishing impacts range from the extraction of a species which skews community composition and diversity to reduction of habitat complexity through direct physical impacts of fishing gear. The nature and magnitude of the effects of fishing activities depend heavily upon the physical and biological characteristics of a specific area in question. There are strict limitations on the degree to which probable local effects can be inferred from the studies of fishing practices conducted elsewhere (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 1999). The extreme variability that occurs within marine habitats confounds the ability to easily evaluate habitat impacts on a regional basis. Obviously, observed impacts at coastal or nearshore sites should not be extrapolated to offshore fishing areas because of the major differences in water depth, sediment type, energy levels, and biological communities (Prena et al. 1999 ). Marine communities that have adapted to highly dynamic environmental conditions (e.g., estuaries) may not be affected as greatly as those communities that are adapted to stable environmental conditions (e.g., deep water communities). While recognizing the pitfalls that are associated with applying the results of gear impact studies from other geographical areas, due to the lack of sufficient and specific information within the Southeast Region it is necessary to review and carefully interpret all available literature in hopes of improving regional knowledge and understanding of fishery-related habitat impacts. In addition to the environmental variability that occurs within the regions, the various types of fishing gear and how each is utilized on various habitat types affect the resulting potential impacts. For example, trawls vary in size and weight, as well as their impacts to the seabed. Additionally, the intensity of fishing activities needs to be considered. Whereas a single incident may have a negligible impact on the marine environment, the cumulative effect may be much more severe. Within intensively fished grounds, the background levels of natural disturbance may have been exceeded, leading to long-term changes in the local benthic community (Jennings and Kaiser 1998). Collie (1998) suggested that, to a large extent, it is the cumulative impact of bottom fishing, rather than the characteristics of a particular gear, that affects benthic communities. Unfortunately, a limitation to many fishing-related impact studies is that they do not measure the long term effects of chronic fishing disturbance. Furthermore, one of the most difficult aspects of estimating the extent of fishing impacts on habitat is the lack of high- resolution data on the distribution of fishing effort (Auster and Langton 1999). The effects of fishing can be divided into short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts (e.g., sediment resuspension) are usually directly observable and measurable while long-term impacts (e.g., effects on biodiversity) may be indirect and more difficult to quantify. Even more difficult to assess would be the cascading effects that fishery-related impacts may have on the marine environment. Additionally, various gears may indirectly impact EFH. Bycatch disposal and ghost fishing are two of the more well-documented indirect impacts to EFH. While recognizing that these are serious issues that pertain to habitat, this review does not attempt to discuss these due to the secondary nature of the impacts. The majority of existing gear impact studies focus on mobile gear such as trawls and dredges. On a regional scale, mobile gear such as trawls impact more of the benthos than any other gear. However, other fishing practices may have a more significant ecological effect in a particular area due to the nature of the habitat and fishery. Yet there are few studies that investigate other gear types, especially static gear. Rogers et al. (1998) stated that there are few accounts of the physical contact of static gear having measurable effects on benthic biota, as the area of sea bed affected by each gear is almost insignificant compared to the widespread effects of mobile gear. Regardless, static gear may negatively affect EFH and, therefore, must be considered. The exact relationship that particular impacts have on the associated community and productivity is not fully understood. While it is clear that fishing activities impact or alter EFH, the result of those impacts or the degree of habitat alteration that still allow for sustainable fishing is unknown (Dayton et al. 1995; Auster et al. 1996; Watling and Norse 1998). Hall (1994) noted that not all impacts are negative. A negative effect at one level may sometimes be viewed as a positive effect at a higher level of biological organization – particular species may be removed in small-scale disturbances yet overall community diversity at the regional scale may rise because disturbance allows more species to coexist. 6.2.1 Fishing Gear Regulations under Council FMPs The following is a list of gear currently in use (or regulated) in fisheries managed under the South Atlantic Council fishery management plans. In general, if gear is not listed it is prohibited or not commonly used in the fishery: Snapper Grouper Fishery Vertical hook-and-line gear, including hand-held rod and manual or electric reel or “bandit gear” with manual, electric or hydraulic reel (recreational and commercial). Spear fishing gear without rebreathers (recreational and commercial). Powerheads, except where expressly prohibited in Special Management Zones (SMZs). In addition, the use of explosive charges, including powerheads, is prohibited in the EEZ off South Carolina (recreational and commercial). Bottom longlines (commercial). Prohibited south of a line running east of St. Lucie Inlet, Florida (27° 10’ N. lat.) and in depths less than 50 fathoms north of that line. May not be used to fish for wreckfish. Sea bass pots (commercial). May not be used or possessed in multiple configurations. Pot size, wire mesh size and construction restrictions. May not be used in the EEZ south of a line running due east of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building, Cape Canaveral, Florida (28° 35.1’ N. lat.). Special Management Zones (created under the Snapper Grouper FMP). Sea bass pots are prohibited in all Special Management Zones. Fishing may only be conducted with hand-held hook-and-line gear (including manual, electric, or hydraulic rod and reel) and spearfishing gear in specified Special Management Zones; however, in other specified Special Management Zones a hydraulic or electric reel that is permanently affixed to a vessel (“bandit gear”) and/or spear fishing gear (or only powerheads) are prohibited. Shrimp Penaeid shrimp trawls (commercial). The Shrimp Fishery Management Plan allows North and South Carolina, Georgia and east Florida to request a closure in federal waters adjacent to closed state waters for brown, pink or white shrimp following severe cold weather that results in an 80% or greater reduction in the population of white shrimp (whiting, royal red and rock shrimp fisheries are exempt from a federal closure for white shrimp). During a federal closure, a buffer zone is established extending seaward from shore to 25 nautical miles, inside of which no trawling is allowed with a net having less than 4" stretch mesh. Vessels trawling inside this buffer zone cannot have a shrimp net aboard (i.e., a net with less than 4" stretch mesh) in the closed portion of the federal zone. Transit of the closed federal zone with less than 4" stretch mesh aboard while in possession of penaeid (white, brown and pink) species will be allowed provided that the nets are in an unfishable condition, which is defined as stowed below deck. Specified areas are closed to trawling for rock shrimp. Rock shrimp trawls (commercial). The minimum mesh size for the cod end of a rock shrimp trawl net in the South Atlantic EEZ off Georgia and Florida is 1-7/8 inches (4.8 cm), stretched mesh. This minimum mesh size is required in at least the last 40 meshes forward of the cod end drawstring (tie off strings), and smaller mesh bag liners are not allowed. A vessel that has a trawl net on board that does not meet these requirements may not possess a rock shrimp in or from the South Atlantic EEZ off Georgia and Florida. Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs). On a penaeid shrimp trawler in the South Atlantic EEZ, each trawl net that is rigged for fishing and has a mesh size less than 2.5", as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut, and each try net that is rigged for fishing and has a headrope length longer than 16.0 ft. must have a certified BRD installed. The following BRDs are certified for use by penaeid shrimp trawlers in the South Atlantic EEZ: extended funnel, expanded mesh and fisheye. As of January 12, 2007, on a vessel that fishes for or possesses rock shrimp in the South Atlantic EEZ, each trawl net or try net that is rigged for fishing must have a certified BRD installed. Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). TEDs are required for the penaeid and rock shrimp fisheries. Red Drum No harvest or possession is allowed in or from the EEZ (no gear specified). Golden Crab Crab traps (commercial). May not be fished in water depths less than 900 feet in the northern zone and 700 feet in the middle and southern zones. Rope is the only allowable material for mainlines and buoy line.